can't be the leader of it? >> i don't think it -- i don't think an independent candidate can possibly win a three-way race. if you think about it. you run a three-way race and translate to a morality of the electorial college vote. get to the house where each state gets one vote and republicans have 30 odd delegations. it's a virtual yule impossibility for the presidency. what i wish that americans elect would do is say instead of trying to get candidates to run or path and run for a job that is impossible for them to win is encourage independent candidates. people who are ceo or university presidents, community leaders to

run as independents for the house and for the senate. >> yeah. >> there is nothing wrong with the senate that three or four legitimately independent senators could fix. it could go a long way. there's a structure barrier on the presidential side. there simply can't be -- >> you agree. >> that was sort of -- trying to finish my thought. that's what i'm shocked at. what where the 2014 candidates? it would be so easy -- i look at my home state of florida and watch what is going on there. you have an unpopular governor versus somebody who is a party switcher. i think the public is going struggle with. are you for real this time. it looks like the virginia's governor race on steroids. more money will be involved. it's one of you have, i think, swing voters literally not sure what a third-party candidate of some short would blow it wide open or charlie, i think, blew it. it's easier for him do the parties. he actually might have been a

viable independent candidate. he may someday regret that he didn't do this as an independent candidacy. by switching parties that automatically, young, creates political skepticism. i don't understand why there aren't more independent candidates doing it. i know, both parties are struggling. nobody wants to run in a political primary anymore. we know what a mess it is. you have at lough good candidates saying now. and the quality has been immediate mediocre at best. if there's an enthey cares go out there and recruit independent candidates. you could, you know, five could do it in the senate. five independent candidates could it. >> if they serve in the senate. >> and you're an accomplished person. someone successful in life in what way. running as an independent candidate is like jumping out of the plane and not being really sure that the parachute works. i mean, there's no support mechanism.

there's no, i mean, it would take an enormously -- and my suspicious a personal checkbook that could basically pick up the tab for the race. the public is screaming for this. they're begging for independent new people to run. i think the two parties are not the place to be.

punish republicans but don't reward democrats. i think that capture it is. that we have these two competing narratives on the one hand, can, will republicans fix their problems with their grant and with the young minority women. are within the see a classic case of second term fatigue and the problems that happen in second terms including chickens coming home to roost. that's the immigration issue. where does the issue go? >> thing is, to me, this is where you look where the three house leaders are from. blue state california. it's a case where the three

leaders have to know what they are doing. i think they are buying time. everybody i talk to. they are going to -- i'm an optimist. i think sometime in the spring after filing deadline have passed. after immigration is not the hot button issue inspect a weird way the more focus on health care it's probably the way that republicans might be able to -- >> what did you think it happens in congress? >> i think it happens in this congress. and sometime this summer. maybe i'm being naive optimist. the leadership of the republican parties know they have do this. they have to find the timing to just do it without totally exploiting their base. >> charlie -- >> i'm going call you naive or optimist. i'll say you're crazy. >> no, i hear you. i know. i think they know they have to. so they're trying to find a way. that's why they don't say it's dead. i think that -- what would happen to is find credible --

just walking these people through the number why the current force for the republican party cannot work. unless you want to -- this won't work. they say how it it work out for marco rubio? >> i think they have to literally walk them through and get each of them comfortable with it and sort of walking through -- walking through the numbers. maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. we know that most members, certainly most republican members are more afraid of a primary than general election. anything they knew that could be described as is a big a amnesty in any averted way will be -- they'll get jammed. but the at the same time i've never seen a situation where a party had a problem that there wasn't a potential for the same problem on the other side. and, you know, if the budget fight ever got over to entitlement and we started

talked about chain cpi or anything like that. you would see the same fracture, phis on the democratic side. the left would go out of the minds. >> why is don't understand a totally machiavellian way why the republicans haven't taken up the president on chain cpi. introduce part of the budget and part of the budget deals. because they could end up splitting the democratic party in a very hostile way. >> a lot of white medicare recipient wouldn't be happy. >> the weird issue, i think, a lot of us still view older -- somehow there's too many people in washington that think older voters are fdr. there's fdr democrat. it's a base republican vote now. seniors are a base republican vote. our way too early poll of christie and hilary.

if you want to take a reminder -- one of the only three groups that christie lead hillary was on seniors. it was a republican group now, and so i think you're right, john. i think republicans are afraid of turning them off. i want to go back to 2016 and way too early poll in a moment. i want to talk about social -- because again, when we started covering politics, social issues were murder doctor democrats. now they're offensive weapons. i want you to look at where there is heading and think ten years in the future will gay marriage be legal in every state. and will marijuana be legal in every state? >> you look at survey of millennial voters. they're not like the older siblings or parents or

anything. in the sense they're not anti-government like conservatives. they're not progovernment like liberals but very, very skeptical of government. their life experience has been that government hasn't functioned well. they seen dysfunctional democratic government and dysfunctional republican government. the thing is, for republicans, if you look at the group and you say, mcgee, the republicans could have a fair shot at that. but this generation is also very libertarian. and i don't think we need two liberal parties. but if republicans would justifying your out -- at theted cruz says we have two liberal parties. >> turn the volume down. full back a little bit. the pro-life community isn't going start voting democratic if republicans just sort of push it down the priority list and talk about it a lot less. if they would do that, i think they would do a lot better. but they can't seem to get themselves to do that.

every state -- no probably not every state, but i've been stunned how same-sex marriage has caught up. i never would have dreamed it would have caught on an moved as fast. >> think about 2004. >> yeah. i never thought -- so the thing is -- and i think that this country is changing faster than we've ever seen it before and so these things will be in most states. well, you know, i think it's legal. i think the supreme court, i mean, they opened the door. they basically almost opened the door with prop 8. i think the next time gay marriage gets to the supreme court, they'll essentially -- it will get to this whole recognition. >> the legislature will pass it? >> it will get to federal recognition of it. it will be more of where you can't ban it. you know, you get married in one state and the recognition. it might as well. it will people as -- marijuana i'm not quite sure we

get there. i think that is a state-by-state. but something about the social issue and how the right controls the abortion issue. they were winning; right? the country was slowly -- thanks to technology, frankly. moving to a pro life position. and i said what would happen if you had a republican candidate who came in here and said i'm so -- i'm pro-life and i don't believe any exceptions. but i'm giving away free birth control to everybody. i don't want anybody -- i don't want there to be any unwanted pregnancy. i'm for handing out birth control at 159. would you work against the candidate or for them? this person said against them. it tells you that somehow the republicans allowed themselves to get caught in this contraception trap. because democrats don't have to talk about abortion anymore. right. they get to talk about basically personal sexual freedoms. and what a way --

crushed on abortion. abortion was the number three issue. who won the election? he won it on social. abortion is the catch all. he won it on contraception. >> okay. let's get too early. 2016 is hillary clinton going run? if she runs, is it lay-up for her to win the nomination. >> i think there's probably a one and three chance she doesn't. and, you know, this town -- that means yes. >> probably. >> well,, you know, the thing is this city, everybody thinks that every decision is 100% political. when she's going to turn 69 years old two weeks before the election. it'll be the same age ronald reagan. i'm not talking about an issue against her. let's face it. who said if his and her health is good. she will run. ly modify that to say if their

health is good and she feels up to it. she will run. but, you know, that last few months secretary of state were pretty tough on her. she has to feel like, you know, do i feel up to this because certainly running for president is more strenuous than sec of state. if she runs is -- for joe bide, if hilary doesn't run. i don't see how he can make himself not run. i don't think he'd be able to help himself. even though not running makes a lot of sense for joe biden. considering he'll be 74 two weeks after the election. you know,ic it would be a easier chance to run. it she runs you'll see a martin oh mally, hickenlooper. you'll see some people in, you

know, i don't think it's -- an are drew cuomo. but we have seen the last all-male open field for the democratic nomination. >> chuck, let's talk about the republican side in our poll you have the establishment. there really only two guys that occupy the space. the automatic establishment of money. i'm somebody who thinks that, you know, jeb is probably his only shot at the white house is somebody named clinton. >> do you agree with me. >> has a better chance of going the distance than christie? >> i do. i think he's more discipline and straddle the fence and unit the

party. you have the second tier that would be strong and be there if christie falters and jeb doesn't run. that's where scott walker occupies that space. you know, he's the guy that i would go to las vegas and put $10 on. you can probably get him to 20 to 1 odds. ic he's likely to be on the ticket. then the tea party i know everybody is high on cruz. i feel like i just assume that he's more on this palin track. it's so much, you know, he's just going to burn out. >> beyond the three we talked about. jeb, christie, walker is a long shot. >> yeah. >> who else could legitimately expect to win the nomination. my assumption is that rand polt is not the category. >> i disagree on paul. i think paul can win the nomination.

i think he has -- his biggest problem is going to be social issues in iowa. and, you know, people close him acknowledge that. the history of his father. the libertarian aspect. he's not pro-life enough. he's too much of a states right guy. so he's going have to navigate tougher waters there. i think he can potentially do this. you can see him doing well in new hampshire. people have a libertarian streak people forget about. you can see how he pulls this off the hardest constituency for him is going to be the evangelical. >> do you agree, charlie? >> if i had to pick two right now go to las vegas and pick two. i pickwalker and paul. i think the chance of jeb bush running are under 10%. and i think that he's intrigued by. it he would love to be president. i think there are some family issues that don't relate to his

last name. he sort of -- it would be difficult for him to run. >> you think paul could win the nomination. >> first of all, i think ted cruz redefined the term extremism in the republican party. as -- and i think paul has been shown himself the last few months to be a lot more pragmatic, a lot more sophisticated pohl ticks. you talk to republicans in the senate and they'll say in the senate conference lunching he'll sit next to or near senator mcconnell. i thought it was going to be another jim bun any -- they get along well. he's trying to be a team player. i think he's graduately becoming more acceptable. and cruise is helping him get there. i would pick walker. >> let me ask you, chuck. our time is up. you think he can win the nomination. do you think that republicans, donors, voters, everybody, could look at paul and say, he can win the white house? >> i don't know.

i think that's, you know, paul supporters will tell you hillary clinton can run to the left on foreign policy. on some issues he can overperform with the youth vote. but i'll tell you, i think there's obviously ways you picture how the democrats will exploit. i think that's his biggest leap. how does he get the conventional donor. i think here is what is interesting about him. he's spending a lot of time according to these people. he's trying to answer skepticism. i guess that's why i don't rule him out at all. >> one more dark horse. i think we underestimate mike a little bit. he's of all the governors we

don't talk about. i can picture him particularly sort of christie -- jeb doesn't run, walker loses his reelection. which is not an inconceivable suddenly pens could be that other governor. >> personalities aside. i think we don't know what the value of the republican nomination is going in 2016 or the knick nomination. we know historically that five times out of six the neater had the white house for two conservative terms lost it. they can't do that. but on the other hand, we also know that president obama numbers are right down there where bush's were at this point. there's a lot of fatigue out there. i don't know voters will be i want to possibility of a third

democratic -- these drive twowrlt and 2016. >> skeptical on rand paul. please join me in thanking charlie and chuck. [applause] [applause] here is another segment from the washington idea forum. it's a conversation with amy klobuchar and susan colins. they talk about their work in the senate and the relationship that a majority of women senators share during their time in office. >> i spent many years running around after both of you. since i left, -- going up to -- >> yeah. [laughter] >> i want to talk about the great bipartisan you managed --

>> the enrollment numbers if in the first month of obamacare are not very good. 27,000 people is all that were able to -- not even enroll but to choose a health plan during the first month. how worried are you? >> well, i think it is no surprise this has been an unacceptable situation. you have a website that is not working at the time when people actually do want to sign up and get their health care this way. so the numbers we saw, i think, about 25,000 from the federal side. significantly better from the state side. and 975,000 people who have completed their application and ready to shop for their plan. the president has pledged to change this. he must. one of our minnesota companies is leading the way to fry to fix it. which i'm glad about. i'm hopeful that the significant

improvements can be made. to step back a minute. people remember originally the idea of the exchange was a bipartisan idea. the health care bill i.t. wasn't. this idea was. it came out of the simple notion that individuals and small businesses should be able to pool their numbers. leverage the numbers so they can get rates that corporations get. they were paying nearly 20% more for insurance. that's the simple idea behind the exchange as we have learned the implementation is not that simple. and the hope is these improvements will be made so people can sign up for their health care. >> i have to respond a little bit because i think we're going to find that the problems with the website are the least of the problems with the affordable care act. ii was in maine the past weekend. and a small business man called

me, whose insurance had been canceled because it does not comply with obamacare. he's facing a 54% increase in his premiums. another constituent contacted me because her insurance also had been canceled. insurance that she liked. she has a 19-year-old son with cystic fibrosis who has been treated his entire life at boston children's hospital. under the new plan that the exchange is offering in the state of maine. she can no longer take her son to the doctor who is treated him his entire life at children's hospital. so i think we're going find there are far bigger problems with obamacare than just the website. >> we're starting to see, i mean, susan, i know you saw

senator feinstein talking about the number of people that called her with similar stories. and she has now joining with senator landrieu and bill clinton from the outside and saying maybe change the law. doing? about the people who are having the insurance canceled. are you going join that effort? >> first of all. we have to make changes going forward. one of the changes is a medical device texas. i would like to see that changed, repealed. because it is essentially a tax on manufacturing. either have a better plan on the exchange or able to keep their own insurance i think one of the problems with making these changes is terrorist general agreement we can't throw out the entire thing. people have gotten used to their

benefit. we have literally high cost. high low cost. high quality care that is really a model for the rest of the country with the mayo clinic and other things. maine also has good health care. the idea is to try to keep those things in and keep a strong bill while making so. changes inevitably going have to make going forward. it's been difficult to make some changes to what is a big bill. the biggest problem with the affordable care act is that it does so little to reign in the

cost 77 health care. after all the reasons why we have people without insurance is because insurance is so costly. unfortunately the result of obamacare is to drive up those costs for many middle north carolina americans and small businesses and reduce their choices at the same time. i think there is a lot that has been could be done to expedite delivery reform to focus on chronic illnesses. for example, in the medicare program we spent $1 out of $3 on people who have diabetes. yet our reimbursement system doesn't incentivize a physician officers to check on their patients with diabetes. we could -- there's so much we can could do on medical liability reform. and every study shows would save

money. what are you going tell him? >> first of all, we've had many discussions thon with the president. and just to get at susan's point here. one of my main argument on delivery system reform. when you look at the fact we've actually seen the slowest increase rate in decades the health care costs. their numbers are out there in the last two years. because a lot of hospital and doctors are starting to respond to look at delivery health care in a more cost efficient way. that's why many of us think -- we have to keep in the good part of the bill. and to allow just to pull back on the exchanges now, when people finally have this opportunity to get a dependenting on what their options are for plans.

repealing the whole bill. >> there was a big mistake in the first place we should have worked together in a bipartisan way. >> it was crazy. a bill like this without a single. >> and remember -- we tried. and they tried to do it that way. >> i really disagree -- >> remember, the theme today is bipartisanship. [laughter] but seriously, amy and i share an interest in the health care delivery reforms because both of our states long before the affordable care act have been leaders. the mayo clinic, obviously is well known for that. maine has several hospitals that have lead the way. if you look at the cart mouth

you'll see maine and minnesota are known for high quality and lower costs. >> we should have learned from that. i think there was a lot that both parties would have agreed on that could have provided the basis far bipartisan bill. and i think it's really sad that instead the bill was jammed through -- >> it's hard to go back. >> kind of support. >> so i want to move on. i joke. 9% approval rating in the congress in the latest gallup poll. an all-time record. but you two managed to find a way to work together. and when we were talking earlier, you won reelection with a -- 35-point landslide. it looks like christie's race look like a nail biter. senator colins you won 62% of the vote in maine. significantly more than president obama won the state.

both of you way outperform the president in your state. more significantly, we had a shutdown debacle. i have a 17-year-old dhawr doesn't pay that much attention to politic. one thing she noticed is things started to change. there started to be a solution come forward when you started to work together. it was the women senators that kind of said -- at least that was the perception. tell me what was actually going on. >> well, that -- you have a very studious daughter, i might add. the women of the senate, for years, have gotten together for dinners. we get together about once a month, once every six weeks. and -- >> where do you go? >> well, we went to my house last time. >> yes. we had a pot luck like in minnesota. [laughter] susan sliced up a bunch of tweet potatoes for one of our meals. >> maine potatoes.

>> sorry. [laughter] >> but the point actually is a serious one. and that is those dibbers have forged bonds of friendship and trust among the women senators. and in times of crisis such as the shutdown, that has been very helpful. i'll never forget being in my office on saturday, october 5th, and end the first week of the shut down. i was listening to the floor debate and colleague after colleague on both sides of the aisle alternating back and forth were come together floor casting political stones at the other side. and no one was offering a solution. so then -- >> i remember it well. >> so i charted out a three-point plan, went to the floor. gave that speech and challenged our colleagues to come out of their partisan corner and stop

fighting and start legislating. it's significant that the first calls that i got just as soon as i got off the senate floor were largely from my female colleagues. amy was one of the first. lisa murkowski, kelly ayotte. and we built from there. there a few good men too. i want to make sure. >> john mccain. >> and john mccain, joe machin. there were several people who helped out as well. but we started meeting day after day and perhaps more important than the fact women lead the way. the fact it was truly bipartisan. we had seven republicans, six democrats, and my independent colleague from maine angus king. not a member of leadership, which i think might have been significant.

leadership kind of came in -- the point we came together and basic framework we agreed on was basically what they did. we would have done a few things differently. there would have been some nice add on. we were ready to announce our agreement. they worked with us. we were talking to them. it wasn't like we were off on our own. i think the the bigger thing is on the issue of the women and the leadership. there's our group but also is a fact that susan lead the way on the senate pass. debby stab stabenow is leading. and it passed with big bipartisan support. boxer was to be get with inhoff and work out an agreement on the transportation bill and senator vitter on the water resources development act. murray and mikulski are leading the way on the negotiations going forward. so the women in the senate while

only 20% of the senate, we have an outsize role when it comes to some of these chairmanships and other things. i guess it's because we keep getting elected. and to sit in the chairman -- i'm sure that the joint economic committee on the senate side. i goat go to chairman lunches. and to see all the women in leadership roles. it makes a big difference. what susan said is true. you look at the violence against women act. the women in the senate every single one of us voted for the bill. that is what broke the dam so the house adopted some of the provisions in the senate bill that were important to protect triable women and other things. it's been happening time and time again. where things are going pretty bad and the women are able to step in and i hope we see more and more of it in the future. i i esspecially we see on the judge conformation going forward. >> yeah. >> we're not letting poor john -- >> just one quick comment on that. amy raised an important point.

there's a critical mass of women in the senate now. but also women are in key leadership roles. back in 2003, when i was chairman of the homeland security committee, i was the only woman who was chair of a major committee. this is the change. >> by the way, there are no women chairman in the house; right? the house is -- >> i don't know. >> i believe that is the case. so we're almost out of time. but how much of this -- oivelt so much behind -- the congress and frankly washington generally is just -- just can't seem to get anything done. we toon in ab watch the blame. so given the progress the clear progress that women how much is

more moderate like yourself or the fact that, you know, you spend time together. the dinners. the trust relationship where we have where we know each other and know, you know, where we can find common ground and where we can't. it's like how washington used to run. people knew about each other. they cared about each other. i think that makes a major difference. age lot of women that have gotten elected we can't get there by walking around in a white suit. some of us have actually. but for the most part, it's a focus on results. when i was running for prosecutor my first time i would look at janet napolitano's website in arizona even though she didn't know me. because she was focused on results. she would show what she promised and what happened. and someone once said women candidate -- i don't agree with the first part. they speak softly and carry a big statistic. and i don't think we speak softly. i think we more focused on the number and accountability and

results. i think that makes a big difference. i'm hopeful as we add more women to the senate and have some opportunity in the next election that the culture can change. we had for the first time in the history of the united states of america a traffic jam in the women senator's bathroom. we want to see more of that. that is just basic idea that you get people in there that like each other. actually you can get things done instead of standing in the opposite corner of the boxing ring throwing punches. you finally realize that courage isn't just that. it's standing next to someone you don't always agree with for the betterment of this country. >> i want to stress amy's last point. women span the id logical speck strum. we don't think alike. we don't have the same positions on various issues. where i see a difference is the

women of the senate are more likely to collaborate and realize that we can disagree on an issue but still seek common ground. that is what changed in the years that i've been in washington. it there's been a reluctance to try to sit down, find out what is most forpt other side and seek common ground. it used to be those of us in the middle of comprise were we're vilified by the far left. >> by some of your own colleagues. >> right. and so in the last minute or so we have left. the big question when it comes to leadership. hillary clinton the democratic women senators all signed a highly secret letter we know about. >> nothing secret about it. >> encouraging hillary to run

for president. how hard was it to get elizabeth warren's signature on the letter. >> i don't think it was very hard. i think people are very excited about the possibility of her running. and so -- it was no surprise. we all signed the letter. the acclamation. the democratic primary. it seems as long as joe biden. >> if you have a way about it. if it doesn't make good news coverage. i don't have a crystal ball on that. there's clearly growing support for her. i did the arizona democratic dinner on saturday night. i've been around country doing a lot of these things. and there's a lot of positive sport. >> if she doesn't run amy klobuchar run for president? >> no. i'll be working with susan colins. >> you noticed it was not a denial. >> not yet. >> you noticed she's traveling all the other the country. [laughter]

did you pick that up. >> a bigger margin than christie. >> thank you very much. [applause] if your a middle or high school student, c-span student cam video competition want the to know the most important issue congress should address next year. make a five to seven minute video and be sure to include c-span programming for your chance to win the grand price of $5,000 with $1,000 in total prizes. the dead lynn is january 20th. get more info at student

cam.org. with the death toll estimated to rise as high as 4,000. this is a little less than an hour. >> today we're pleased to have with us john. the director at the ub office with the coordination humanitarian affair and ted. the unicef director of the emergency programs. there here to provide update on the relief effort in the philippines. they'll speak first then take your questions. >> thank you very much. thank you thank you very much for the opportunity to update you all. now one week in to the response to this tremendous crisis as we've all been following over

the past week. i thought it was important comment update you on the latest situation and the latest data of the response. the first thing that we, of course, have to express, again, is our sadness and condolences to all who lost their lives in this tragedy. and i also have to say how much our colleagues on the ground inspire us our humanitarian colleagues. they have been really facing an overwhelming situation, but they have faced it with huge determination and resolve. and a week in to the crisis, we do see the fruit of the labor. we did not see it as all had hoped in the first days, but they were working very hard. they were there from day one and the morning after the storm. they were on the ground in the effective areas, and trying to do what they could do.

we have currently, now, over 13 million people affected by this crisis. the latest figure are now at 1.9 million of the displaced. they are sheltering in over 1 rkdz 100 evacuation centers across the infected area. there have been at least 2eu78 ,000 house severely damaged. of that, we estimate that over 160,000 have been completely destroyed. and adds of today, the national disaster risk reduction and management counsel of the philippines reports that death toll now at 3,600. these figures are changing, all the time. of course, as you can expect. and they expect that they will

exceed 4,000 very shortly. in terms of -- in terms of the response, as i said, as of saturday morning, humanitarian organizations mobilized response in term of humanitarian staff to get out in to the infected area. they came out against phenomenal area of infrastructure and destruction. as i mentioned, the housing infrastructure and the other infrastructure. the rolls blocked with debris. the electricity networking also destroyed. and also the other things that we need to mobilize the response transport networking -- [inaudible] and again, we found ourselves in

a waste land trying that to and a half gait through all of this debris and obstructions to get the roads opened up and get the team to the people. of the people who have been patiently frustratedly waiting for the support that they so desperately need. but the pace of the activity of our colleagues on the ground has been phenomenal. our system has worked in term of being able to mobilize the people and oorn the sport they need. we will circulate after the meetings some maps that show how the role have not been systemly cleared over the past week.

the effort has been woe have needed that. i said in other briefings that we have to recall that as a humanitarian community worldwide. we don't have warehouses packed full of huge quantity of supplies. we are hand to mouth in so many crisises whether it's -- where over half a million

children are dying ere year for the past number of years to malnutrition to syria which is half funded. and to all of these other crisises. we are stretched to the limit. that means that we need, when sudden crisis like this occurs, we need very fast mobilization of additional resources to enable us to get the supplies that we need respond to this crisis. and it has been again, a phenomenal response by humanitarian organizations who have declared this crisis as their top -- their level -- they call it level three that activates at the top emergency response mechanisms within each of the organizations to release money to release supplies, to redirect -- supplies that are intended for other crisises that we have elsewhere are all in many

instances being redirected to this crisis because this one is so urgent and hours matter. and so, again, this mobilization is now what you're seeing on the ground as we speak. but as i said in partnership with our donors. i want to commend them. they have responded very generously to an appeal that the emergency relief coordinator launched on earlier this week on tuesday where she asked for $3 01 million already. we received $72 million in to that appeal. there has been a total of $150 million donated we have been to be track, which is additional not just for our appeal, but also for the like of the ifrc, and icrc and other humanitarian

partners who are not part of our sol dedication appeal. we have also registered $104 million in pledges. the pledges have yet to be assigned. whether they will come to our appeal or other organizations. but the must be is being mobilized. it's a lot of money very quickly. and we thank our donors for that. the other partnership we have is with military partner. both the philippine military. but also international military. and we are so grateful for their rapid mobilization. they brairng logistical which is essential for us. and particularly on-air assets and the fixed and also

helicopters. we have seen a fast response by all partners on this. and having said that. we are to keep our foot on the accelerator because too many people have not received assistance. but they -- but they should know the tabs is on the way. and that is evidenced by every day as significantly more people receiving they discretely need. we are focused in the first instance of getting people fresh drinking water. food and high energy being the

large quantity by the food program. as well as other food and shelter to help people. just to protect themselves from the elements there. and ion in particular an this. which is the biggest agency agency when it comes to the leadership of the different clusters for intervention. ly let him speak to what you unicef is doing. and the final thing to say which maybe i should have said upfront

is this is nationally lead response. the philippines have been really in our view their people have been caught up in this crisis across the effective areas. and yet they have been able to mobilize to compensate for that. of course it's been incredibly dpiflt. it's, incredibly challenging. and the consequences of those difficulties and challenges is that we are not as fast as we need to be involved in the response. we are now seeing the philippine authorities focus on getting the law and order on the situation

under control. because we are very concerned about particularly those who are using weapons and attacking the installation in the infected areas who are very concerned and i'm sure ted will speak nor that about those vulnerable particularly women and children. a phenomenal crisis. one precedented in many ways in term of its scale. and the complexity on logistical side is being met with the phenomenally -- a phenomenal response. phenomenally generous on the part of the donor community. and phenomenally committed on the power to humanitarian

organizations who have mobilized in a way with a lot of expertise to respond. and then the partnerships, which are so key. particularly with our international military partners and to get us the assets we need get to the areas we need get to overcoming these infrastructure obstacles of the roads being destroyed. and the other communication networks being so badly damaged. that all the combination together is finally really coming together and mobilizing on the scale and on the speed that the people so desperately need. finally, to say the resilience

of the people. you know valery has been out there for a number of days. and i was speaking to her this morning. and, you know, she at the human level really has been inspired by the resilience. the people need it. it's a message we're absolutely acting on. but i do salute our colleague z as she did underground because they have really, in the face of overwhelming challenges.

they have not allowed health to be overwhelmed. and working through this. in a commendable and courageous way. i'll stop there and hand the floor over to my colleague, ted. >> thawrk. i join john in expressing our condolences to the government and people of the philippines. and again, as john has said. i think we have been impressed by the resilience of the population on the ground. people say, you know, was there enough preparedness done? , you know, the reality is there was a enormous amount of prepareddedness. you have the kind initial difficulty you face in the philippines. supertyphoon affected 5 million children. that's the portion of the population that is john mentioned that are children. and these children require immediate support. unicef's emergency effort is up

and running around the clock. we have staff on the ground. where we are setting up field offices. we really, i think, as a result of the level three emergency. the system that individual -- we have got the a-team on the ground doing everything they can to really gear up to the effort. and they'ring a clearer picture of kids starting with clean, water, food the first priority as john has said getting clean water and sanitation and hygiene facility to people and reestablishing the water treatment plant that are operating in some dig urban jernts like -- and then really focusing on sanitation so that we don't have a situation major urban settings where the major way of dealing with sanitation is open defecation, which has the risk of con tom nateing the

groundwater. in response to the situation there's been work on the water supply system we can now announce that the water supply system is partially restored with both repair ever generators, repair some of the urban water infrastructure, some of the piping, and fewer secured -- as john said, the different military on the ground that have been assisting with the operation. in this case the philippine military and the u.s. military provided some fuel to restart some of the generators. we can say it's partial water restored to 2,000 of the population. roughly 20% of capacity is up and running. there's still a long way to go. something has been started. we can also -- this is work being done with the government of the philippines organizations and unicef working very closely together to get this up and running.

we've had our water sanitation and hygiene supplies on the ground basically water bladders, hygiene kits, and water purification tablets for a 45* ,000 people. much more is on the way. what is significant the supplies are arriving by road. we don't have to only rely on c130. there's now road access. i was speaking to colleagues this morning who are there. our representative is on site. firstly, i was speaking to him. so the mobile phone system is restored. secondly, he got from the airport to town in a half hour where as do two days it was taking an hour and a half. clearly things are improving in term of being able to get more people on the ground more supplies in. and we're looking at emerge challenges. challenges around child prerks, risk of exploitation, concerns about separate unaccompanied children and getting them with

tear families as quickly as possible. sanitation, water, hygiene, issues related to child protection, preventing disease outbreaks. those are the immediate priorities. overall, it's clear that much more needs to be done. but it's also clear that we're starting to open up the log jam. and i think we are say we are beginning to turn the corner. there's significant risks. risk of disease outbreak, you know, have to prevent against things like key rei ya diseases and cholera. more needs to be done. i think we seat turning of the corner. it's thanks to the phenomenal work of colleagues on the ground from different agencies and the leadership of the filipino authorities and the partnership that john mentioned with the military. -- the requirement we need remember that immediate face we have to

start think recovery and reconstruction. the requirement are $61 million for yiewb receive. we extremed some generous contribution including from the public. we hope to continue this momentum and to truly be able to say that, you know, enough will be on the ground soon and that the children of other areas affected by this typhoon can return to a sense of normalcy and get back to school and reunited with their families. >> thank you very much. we can now take some questions. if you can identify yourself and use microphone, please. thank you very much. [inaudible]

one thing noised to ease the problem. what would that be? >> money. we are chronically underfunded worldwide. and also rightly on the immediate urgency of this disaster. children will dying in the -- we don't have the money to provide them with a seating and the other life saving support they need. and, you know, these are not small numbers. half over half a million children have died every year across there. so as a humanitarian community operationally we are chronically underfunded worldwide. that means people are dying needilily and needlessly suffering. we are now in the spotlight and very grateful for the spotlight on this crisis which exposes our capacity to respond.

i would -- they have proven that day after the storm flying in from all over the world. we mobilized as my colleague ted has said. we have mobilized the best of the best to respond to this crisis. but i have said also our warehouses nowhere do we have warehouses full of supplies ready for what is a predictable pry sis. we know every year around the world somewhere that will be a large crisis like this. an earthquake, flooding. whatever and if we had the resources first and foremost. i cannot put and say and recommend that we put supplies in to a warehouse waiting for something to happen. on the need of the resource. the first thing that has to

happen. you have to be funded properly. property fundened. we need to receipt serve in where houses strategic likely located across the world to be able to respond to these predictable sudden crisises. because we know they're going to happen. what is not known is where. we can strategically. strategically prepare for that. and the lo gist cat support. it's the same situation. in the early days to overcome the infrastructure problems that we will need. on the latter. we have seen a effective

mobilization of support from military partners on this. you can see on the television screens all of those aircraft that are coming in hour after hour. the helicopters that have arrived and getting out in to the remote area. if i had one request as a humidity it is that we give greater priority in funding to humanitarian action. when we look at the funding provided internationally in terms of countries contribute in term of military budgets, security buckets, and oh budgets they're involved in. our request, and i also say the development partners are quite modest when they're pointing to that -- the big international part of funding. and we also need right now today

-- we need to say our development partners also need hundreds of millions of dollars. in fact the cost of this will probably run in to billions. to help people to rebuild their lives here. to rebuild the houses. to rebuild the roads. to rebuild the rest of the infrastructure. also, to take them out of the -- to relocate people to safer area. when we know with the path of the storms are going. where the low lying lands are, and so forth. all of the takes money. the good news is, if you invest in humanitarian. if you invest in development you save lives. it's as simple as that. >> thank you, john.

is there a figure of how many million, billions would be needed to -- underfunded right now for the needs and what would be needed for a reserve. and to our colleague from your colleague from unicef. is the 61 million "dallas" that you're asking for part of the overall $300 million the u.n. requested for the typhoon immediate aid? on the second question, the answer is yes. it's part of the overall appeal. we work closely together.

we're going to be looking at -- that's going to require more resources. we need to keep the momentum going on the contribution that we received today. and the funding numbers as it stands today. and i won't give you the figure because it's on our website and i can get it for you immediately after this. after the meeting. >> can you talk a little bit more about the security situation in the philippines in term of your military partnership. what is the need there? there is still concern that law and order is not being established. the direction center or gas station and such. will you be appealing to the u.s. and other militaries that

are helping with the security. on the security side it's the philippine authorities that are stepping up on providing the security for law and order. and the requested of -- on logistical and the -- in particular not just they're also very generously supporting us. you're absolutely right. in that in the immediate after math, again, is the security staff of the philippine as security forces were at themselves caught up in this terrible tragedy. and there was a break down in certain area with law and order. there was nobody to enforce the law and order.

but in the early hours after the storm and you had this as a very high priority for the philippine authorities. our colleagues on the ground were feeding back information to that as well. of the priority that this should be given. and they did give us priority. and that's why very quickly so you seen the redeployment of large number of securities fors from within the philippines to these disaster affected areas. and we will continue to be very concerned about the vulnerable of the population. and until we see the full restoration of law and order across the whole area. >> they're working, i mean, our the message on this is we really see a response as already

effective from the philippine all of the challenges they face. and it is an issue. it is an issue that the philippine authorities are here to be concerned about. it's an issue that we in the international organizations are concerned about in particular for those more vulnerable in these circumstances it's women and children. and in particular, women who are particularly vulnerable in these circumstances. [inaudible] immediately consulted with the

emergency relief coordinator. they agreed that she would deploy immediately. and she has done so. to provide, you know, support and to the teems on the ground to evict back with the headquarter at the executive head level in real time to ensure that the mobilization is as effective as it can be feeding in firsthand experiences engaging with the most senior leadership including president of the philippines. we in the international community are being are potatoes focused on the priority to priority being as responsive as we can possibly be. she has been working around the clock. and try to figure out when the e-mails stop.

because then i can see that she's resting and she's not. she hasn't rested in days. and so she's -- she's there on the ground. a number of other -- they've discussed also among themselves the necessity to -- they take away time. time is incredibly pressure. they have to be, you know, attended to in term of meetings and so on and so on. to get the balance on this right the executive head --

who own want to be there. they all want to be there. all of us want to be there. that's not where we should be. we have to be where we can be most effective in contributing to the response to this crisis. he has been on the phone getting us the resources that we need and so forth. in terms of the plans going forward and secretary general and valerie have doesed next steps and actually valerie left yesterday to fulfill commitment in the gulf country.

again, these are very important relationships we have there of country being very generous. she went wack to the philippines on monday. again, to followup on what she was doing this week to make sure that everything that can be done and a number of executive heads will be there at the same time. so, again, there's a maximum use of time and resources in the most efficient and effective way. i don't understand there's any plan at this point of secretary general do anything at the physical presence out. we certainly have not asked him to go because we have asked him to help us other aspect and have been doing effectively.

how deployed and being used. they are -- there services are being used. >> thank you, yes. i can confirm that. and all of the military or support coming in from military internationally is being coordinated through a logistical coordination. and to ensure that again the assets that are available are being deployed in a way that

actually meets the most urgent and immediate needs. that is in close harmony or connection with the government. the government in the lead, as you know. and therefore the prioritization is ultimately established with the government agreement. i can't tell you what location it has been. i can tell you after the briefing. it's welcome commitment. a commitment because again, as we know the field hospital capacity that the israelis can mobilize is -- and we've seen it in very effective in many of the crisises as well.

[inaudible] >> so you have -- [inaudible] have offered it in the humanitarian and logistic capacity. >> they have a long list of country. i don't have it in front of me. i can tell you from the top of my head. it's united states of america, the united nations, israel as we heard already. malaysia, australia, japan. >> china. no, not china. sweden. and i can get you the -- it's a very impressive list of countries that have mobilized very quickly. again very essential military

asset to support our humanitarian operations. but we can most definitely give you that list very quickly after this briefing. [inaudible] >> thank you. [inaudible] you may have mentioned this. but the lack of electricity and water. and there is a field hospital that has arrived. but are you medevacing anyone out to're area hospitals. is there any u.n. effort to get people in to other hospitals? the yes, there is medevac, as you have probably seen on tv reports as well. this is one of the dispensable capacities that are being provided by military partners.

they have the helicopter asset for moving and speed from the locations people who are in need of urgent medical attention. and so, again that's why we are grateful they mobilized so quickly. military partners. listing the different countries who have provided a long list of countries. >> sure. and you answered the thing i was going ask. it was a -- [inaudible] by the african union. we could have coordinate the it better. in privates cases of humanitarian issue, you have spoken of a need to is have some separation between military presence and humanitarian. so i wondered -- i obviously it's a crisis and so all offers are, you know, welcome. but has there -- how is it dpirvet? which you said there should be a dividing line between military and humanitarian. and i want to respond to inspect

i don't know if it's true or not. a recent report said that u.s. marine were instructed not let philippine government officials and politicians touch the relief goods that will arrive -- planes scheduled to arrive carrying goods from the u.n. does it ring any bells? >> okay. on the first question when we talk talk about working in partnership with military, we with have strict guidelines for doing so. these have been worked out, and in essence. in essence we do not want to be engaged in a -- in humanitarian response with anybody who is -- to conflict. and, you know, that's what we

endeavor to work through. so on this one we're responding to enough disaster. and again. we have strict guidelines that have been [inaudible] between us and military partners. about respecting humanitarian principle and so on. and these are, you know, these are, you know, not just for us in term of guideline but also for our military partners. and they have -- [inaudible] so they are called oslo principles. okay. on the worldwide web. on the second question, i don't know what the, you know, the specific details of that report are, but what i will say is that again, you know, in a crisis.

you come up against so many dynamics. there's a chaos to the crisis. there are bureaucratic obstacles. so everybody out there is endeavoring to break down any obstacle to delay the delivery of aid to the people who deliberately and urgently need it. and i think we have to be careful about, you know, citing from, you know, different instructions out of their context or so on. without commenting on the specific of this particular report. but the bottom line is that for us humanitarians we have a long and deep partnership with a philippine authorities. it's one of the best relationships that we have in the world. coming up on three years and

i've traveled to so many countries in carriage of my duty. i cannot think of this country where we have a better relationship. and that is better this crisis and for a long time in term of true partnership and mutual respect. easy agreement on how we should work together. what we're seeking to achieve. so now in the midst of this crisis, the strength of that relationship hold through. there's no tension between the humanitarian community on the ground and philippine leadership. there is, again, an openness among the philippine leadership. to our engagement in a way that is commendable. they are under pressure. we are under pressure. everybody is right to be under

pressure. and in that dynamic, we are still finding that the dynamics are overwhelmingly positive. we're sorting out any issues. there are issues and will always be issues on all sides. where things are identified and mistakes being made. things need to be done differently that need to be done better. and again, in the relationship that we have with the philippine authorities, it's very constructive and resulting in, you know, an optimal performance in our partnership. on the ground we are working together to do better. to do faster. until we are reached everybody everywhere with all of the assistance of the need.

[inaudible] -- with the social workers and department of the social welfare and development. it has to be a partnership. it is a partnership. it's one of the strongest relationships we've got as john has said. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. >> you mention have had the gulf country have been generous. can you be more specific about the countries and what they have provided. they are generous internationally in all of the appeals we are putting out there. it's not just for this appeal. but for our appeals worldwide.

in this particular apeople, i know that the united arab em rats, for example, come up with a sizable amount of money that we just check here. $10 million that is one of the gulf country i have on the list. the larger donors that have contributed so far. and -- >> until the background there. sorry. i'm from the "new york times." i have a couple of quick questions. can you gentleman provide any

clarity on the conflicting information about the death tolls. ? you mentioned 3600 today. i believe that the president of the philippines has had his own lower estimate. there's the 10,000 estimate contradicted. andability the website yesterday had something -- deaths reported. where are you getting the 3600, and anything you can do provide some clarity on how we're getting these numbers would be helpful. ..

>> we used that figure and

thus figure today is the actual debt that has been issued by the national disaster risk manager make council and they say the actual death toll to date that they have been able are 3,600. we know that figure will rise. there are places we have not been able to still get. but we stopped putting out an estimate. i did not think it was confusing myself that we now

clarify with the actual figures are in we were saying the estimated. >>. >> just to clarify yesterday's estimate? >> from the ministry of defence it was not clarified to be an estimate that is why today we have updated of the official philippine authority figure of 3,600. >> so it did not come from the department of social welfare and development as we were told yesterday? the 4,460 did not come from the department? >> i am sorry. i had the figure yesterday i

did not put it off any figures out so i don't know where the 4,600 comes from. >> that is what was on the web site. >> that is an error. it is a mistake. sorry about that. we apologize. mistakes are made. if they're wrong figure was up on the web site we apologize for putting that up there. but it is a fast-moving situation and we are reliant on what the gatt from our sources. we take the point very clear about being the source of the figures.

>> just one follow-up, are you actively discouraging any other leaders from visiting? >> no. what the leadership of the un agencies them partners have decided is they would be very judicious about curtailing the instinctive reaction that they want to be out there. everybody has that instinctive reaction to get out there to be with the people as the expression a solidarity and is very important for the overall management of the operation. so the executive leadership

have carefully calculated how they can best use their engagement in the most effective way. as one involved in first instance valerie deploying herself because her personal leadership was required in the early days in reid have seen the positive effect of that and other executive heads of operational agencies are now on brooch because there is leadership is also required as it has been calculated move that is how we will continue going forward. thank you very much. >> i just want to ask if there is any update our progress on polio vaccinations since you were last year? >> i would suggest there has been progress in the sense

that the government of sudan has agreed to have further meetings. demonstrating that even though in their view there is no need for a further meeting they are prepared to do whatever is necessary. and because of that is what it appears is needed. we appeal to both sides to prioritize to get this under way. i am hopeful that this will happen but that is not enough. we actually have to see it translate into the operation on the ground.

but progress is i was last year i am hoping in led by eight unicef in that it would just take a couple of days to vaccinate the 165,000 children from a scourged that should be eliminated. thank you.

>> the president met with insurance ceos earlier today to discuss the concerns of the rollout shortly before the meeting press secretary jay carney talks about the president's willingness to make changes. here is some of what he had to say. >> the president said in his remarks, prepared remarks yesterday he was to work with lawmakers of both party saugh home dash parties to make improvements to the affordable care act. >> we absolutely do not support a you opposed the

upton bill because whatever the intentions of that bill while maybe fixing the problem potentially who received cancellation letters by allowing insurers to have new policies deliberately or not is designed to undermine the affordable care active and i think if you talk to insurers that they would serious problems because it would undercut the market place and creates a situation that is hard to sustain

here is the oral argument to that case. >> we with her arguments in se 12 >> we will hear arguments first this morning and bond he s.s. >> mr. chief justice of debt pleases the court if the statute at issue really does malici preach every malicious use of chemicals everywhere in the nation as the government insists it exceeds congressower.

is enumerated powers they have made clear it is the bedrock of our federalur s system that congress lacksower z thee police power to to ju criminalize conduct without jurisdictional element are or sm some nexus to distinctlyern. federal concern.te's ratifationf the t ratification of the that d treaty of the four nationd does not change that bedrock principle of our constitutional system. treaty >> but the treaty is valid. yhe legislation seems to an largely copy the words of the treaty without addingt' anything.s co so the treaty could be legislat constitutional implementing notg a legislation is>> justiceinsbur unconstitutional. >> justice ginsburg i willis

quarrel with the promise it is true they use similar terms terms andan terminology but impd there is one very important difference between the convention and a statue that differentiates this case. tself that is the convention itself does ly regulate individul conduct at all. all so not tells the parties go regulate individual conduct in exactly the way this convention regulates state parties and then what the legislation does as justice ginsburg said just mirrors the convention as the convention contemplated. >> justice kagan what the convention says in article vii, section 1, 33a what it says is that each nation-state convention agrees in accordance with these constitutional processes to pass p. no laws that make it unlawful for

individuals conduct that would violate the convention by a nation-state. i would respectfully suggest that making that translation if you will between what violates the condition for a nation-state and what would be comparable individual conduct is not obvious and when the government does that through pena legislation there is no reason why pena legislation shouldn't have to comply. >> mr. clement why not? there can be no doubt that chemical weaponry is at the forefront of our foreign-policy efforts right now. look at the serious situation. it would be deeply ironic that we have expended so much energy criticizing syria plan if this course were now -- this court were now to create legislation to implement the treaty was in unconstitutional.

putting aside the impact on foreign relations if it's okay to regulate the possession of marijuana for a local crime, why is it unconstitutional to regulate the use of something that can kill or maim another human being, a chemical that could kill or maim a human being? i don't understand where the disconnect is in terms of our federal or state system. >> justice sotomayor i think it gets down to the difference between raache and lopez which this court is held as a classic and rational way to regulate commerce to basically prohibit certain items from congress. >> there is no dispute that these chemicals were transported along interstate lines. that's not even disputed in this case. >> i don't think it was disputed

and lopez that the firearm would have had to cross-state lines but the problem and lopez was the federal statute was not sure it should in a way that had jurisdictional nexus that made the statute applicable. >> we could take this case to decide the commerce clause issue did it? it asserts it now but as we take the case the issue is whether the treaty supported the laws. >> that's right justice scalia and we think the government like a private party can weigh the constitutional argument. on the other hand i would say we are not particularly concerned about the commerce clause argument because we think the argument has the same basic effect is the treaty power argument. >> do you think mr. clement and this goes back to justice ginsburg's question, could this treaty have that self-regulated individual conduct? could the treaty have been self-executing? >> well, i think that's an

interesting question and i don't think the court needs to answer it. i would take the position that it there really were a self-executing treaty that try to impose criminal call -- chemical prohibition i would say it violates the constitution for the same basic reasons that this implementing legislation does. >> where would you find that in the constitution because there is clearly treaty power that does not have subject matter limitations and indeed if you go back to the founding history it's very clear that they thought about all kinds of subject matter limitations in james madison and others decided quite self-consciously not to impose them so where would you find that limitation in the constitution? >> i would find that limitation in the structural revisions of the constitution and the enumerated powers of congress and i would say -- >> the enumerated powers the treaty power so you have to find a constraint on the treaty power. where does it come from? >> well i think where i come

from again is the structural provisions of the constitution. a self-executing treaty purported to commandeer state and local police officers i would think there might be an amendment objection calling it an enumerated power objection and there might be objection to that treaty. >> the word treaty has some meaning. it is certainly too true going back to the beginning of that country there have been many treaties that have been implemented in ways that affect matters that otherwise would you within the province of the states. one of the original purposes of the objectives of the constitution was to deal with the treaty power was to deal with the issue of debts owed to british creditors and there have been cases about property rights of foreign subjects about the treatment of foreign subjects and you hear about things that are moving across international

borders about extradition and all of those within all of those, until fairly recently, certainly until generally after world war ii all of those concerned matters that are of legitimate concern of a foreign state. that was the purpose of the treaty so can't we see something in that in the meaning of the treaty what it was understood to mean when the constitution was adopted? >> i think that's right justice alito and i didn't mean to answer justice kagan's question to the premise that there is no limit on treaty power whatsoever but i think it's important to recognize in the context of nonself executed treaties there's a real opportunity to leave for another day the question but that the treaty itself is valid because sometimes the treaty is not self-executing precisely because the summit recognizes that. >> if you had been the president's counsel would you have advised him it's unconstitutional to sign this treaty? >> absolutely not justice

kennedy but that's precisely because it's a self-executing treaty by its terms and doesn't do anything to directly regulate individual conduct and if i were the president's counsel and i would have said ominously mr. president i don't think it's requires us to have any law that applies to garden-variety chemicals but if we need to discharge her treaty executions the states are absolutely ready and able to do that. there's no state that doesn't have a general assault statute covered by this. >> mr. clement the irony in what you just said, because the victim many times went to the state police and said please help me and they turned her away a dozen times. finally they said go to the post office. this doesn't seem to be -- this trenches on the state's domain and yet in this very case

it wasn't until the state referred her to the post office, federal officials that she got any action. >> justice ginsburg one way to understand that is the state of pennsylvania exercised his prosecutorial discretion not to pursue this matter. i don't even think the government says that exercise prosecutorial puts us in our treaty obligation to have a lot of prohibits misconduct which the states certainly do. the treaty application is not to make sure that every single use malicious use of chemicals is prosecuted by state or local officials. >> mr. clement can i date sure i understand your test? your test is to say with respect to every prosecution under this treaty, a court has to ask whether the prosecution has a sufficient nexus to national or international concerns? is that your test? >> no, that is my my test.

the one thing i think i know from this precedence is the federal government doesn't have general police power so as i look at the statute he can either be saved by essentially creating a jurisdictional element out of the phrase peaceful and equating it with nonwar for the statute really has this general character that at least as applied to the chemicals here which are dual chemicals that can't be constitutionally applied. >> i thought the test i just articulated was really directly out of your reefs but if you are suggesting that is not the test give me the test we are supposed to ask with respect to this case or any other as to whether the prosecution is unconstitutional. >> is whether the federal statute exercises the general police power and if it does -- >> that sounds like a challenge. i am careful to talk about as an applied challenge to this

particular prosecution. >> that's because the only relief i'm seeking is to have my clients conviction vacated so this is the classic -- and the reasoning the court may employ in vindicating my challenge may suggest the statute is unconstitutional in some or all of the different applications. >> so you think if the statute extends to things that we have generally thought of as part of the least power, that sufficient? >> i would save the federal statute exercises police power without regard to jurisdictional element or some nexus of federal concern than that statute exceeds congress's power. that was the case and lopez in the case of morrison and -- >> nexus to a national concern again is what i understood you to say in your brief but let me give you a hypothetical. let's say it's the same

convention except it relates only to sarin gas and there's a chemist out there and the implementing legislation mirrors the convention. the chemist out their manufactures sarin gas and i take it's pretty easy to manufacture and the senses through the ducts of the house and kills everybody in it. is that at the nexus to national concerns? >> it does your honor in that it would be valid legislation precisely because fahren is something that congress could or have it in its uses and as i understand how the statute applies to sarin gas or in schedule one substance is in the convention of the treaty those are unlawful. what is particularly unusual about the statute application to something like potassium bichromate or vinegar or whatever you have is that most of its possession and usage is perfectly lawful and what makes

it a chemical weapon in the government's theory is that when it's used purely intrastate in a malicious way. >> my hypothetical, it's a completely domestic use. it's just a chemist that use sarin gas and you are saying the differences well, what the treaty make her stated is to define the category of chemicals more broadly. i guess what i want to know is you are imagining a world in which judges day today tried to get inside the head of treaty makers to think about you know in this case we understand there is a national interest in regulating sarin gas but we don't think there's a sufficient national interest in regulating some other chemical or some other chemical somewhere down the line. it seems to me a completely indeterminate test and one that would have judges take the place

of treaty makers in terms of deciding what is in the national and international interest. >> justice kagan i would beg to differ. i think it avoids judges being put in that's difficult position precisely the because we distinguish between the validity of the convention and implemented legislation. in the implementing legislation we asked the courts to do what they do in every other context. which is to check and see if that implementing legislation is consistent with our basic chartering document. it's the governments position which i don't really understand why this would work but their theory is if the not so executed treaty is valid than the implementing legislation is ipso facto valid. think about the convention before this court in the vienna case. it's an obligation on any arresting officials to provide notification to the foreign national. it would need a critically

rational way to implement back convention to have a national police force so every arresting officer is fully apprised of the vienna responsibilities of the rational which implement the treaty would you are mildly consistent with the constitution. on the other hand the same self executing treaty would implement the state department to work with police officers on the state and local level to understand their patients. >> do you think it would be difficult for a judge to ask is there any possibility that there is any other country in the world that has the slightest interest in how the united states or any of its subdivisions deals with a particular situation involved in this case? >> justice alito i think that would be one way of approaching the question. >> that would be beyond the ability of a federal judge when a case like this comes before them? >> i don't think it would need

beyond the ability of a federal judge to say let's hypothetically ask the question in a self-executing treaty. would congress have the power to pass a statute. if the interest now the burden shifts to find out why it is the treaty had something to the powers of federal government and i think to make it clear this is a very different context from what the court had in missouri against holland because the treaty itself prohibited individual action. an individual violated the treaty and took a migratory bird out of season that instance the statute did nothing more than put a criminal penalty and violating conduct that was arctic prohibited to the individual. >> is a one-way ticket or dicier argument or to unfairly confining to your argument to say that what you're suggesting is something like a clear statement rule? that if the treaties intent

nation-states to have their own constitutional structure superceded at a minimum it has to say so and then we come to the question on whether or not they can do it. >> only to add the one place that this convention talks about imposing obligations on individuals is a promise by the nation-state to pass legislation that is in accordance with their constitutional system so it's very bizarre that article vii section 133a, it's very bizarre when the only way we are reaching individual conduct unlike the treaty in holland is united states promised to pass legislation that comports with their constitutional process to say the convention therefore allows us to pass legislation that doesn't comport with their constitutional process. >> mr. clement i don't understand how you distinguish sarin gas. why is sarin gas different from

vinegar? >> because sarin gas is i think more equivalent to something the congress would try to deal with the way it dealt with marijuana in risch. it's a reflectioreflectio n of the idea that when you're talking about things with the federal government is trying to prohibited then there is a greater federal power to do that and they think the sarin gas you can imagine if i can put aside the treaty power sarin gas even under the war powers the federal congress would say that something that is inherently a chemical weapon that we are going to prohibit people from having. that's very different from these situations where if you think about it the only thing that makes these chemicals chemical weapons instead of chemicals is their internal use in an interesting way and that's different from the hypothetical statute as well. in the three schedules in statute 43 chemicals that are pretty newly problematic the federal government once to regulate those important that the unauthorized possession of

those, i don't see why they couldn't do that with or without the treaty but what is so anomalous here is the idea that these chemicals everything wrapped poison vinegar whatever it is, these things are perfectly lawful and we don't think of them as chemical weapons unless and until they are used in a malicious way. all of a sudden they become classified as chemical weapons. it's a very odd statute but it does operate in a way that is consistent with the bedrock principle and congress doesn't have this kind of police power. >> the chemical used here one of the chemicals in the annex to the treaty? >> i don't believe so it is certainly not listed on the three schedules. neither of these are on there and i don't -- i do think there's an important difference. this is a statute that is trying to regulate chemical weapons and with respect to something like weaponiz